« 90% of drop in Labour support has gone to the Conservatives | Main | "One of the most profound, but under-appreciated, changes that David Cameron has brought to Conservative politics is a determination to put the strengthening of relationships at the heart of policy." »

Comments

Norm brainer.

We already have censorship. There are no full frontal pictures of excited young men.

Libertarian: Your comments won't be deleted if you refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations about the private lives of public figures.

I too believe that miscreants must take full responsibility for their actions but it is plain daft to deny the importance of upbringing - both familial and social - in shaping behaviour.

I specifically mentioned the role of today's wrongheaded approach to education, parenting and criminal justice in sending negative signals to young men but it seems that some people are absolutely determined to deny that lad mags have any responsibility whatsoever in inculcating bad values.

Chavs are not the only people who read - and are influenced by - lad mags but they are the people most likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour. Emotionally-illiterate public school-educated louts tend to have much more to lose so they usually exercise a modicum of self-restraint as to when and how they misbehave.

What Britain needs is a revolution in attitudes; away from the selfish, self-obsessed, self-righteous, self-pitying kidulthood of contemporary mores and towards the kind of authentically manly, community-minded, responsible virtues of the recent past.

The growth of Christianity in the Victorian era saw the greatest mass uplift of humanity in our history. This was not brought about by an economic revolution but a spiritual and attitudinal one.

Honesty, neighbourliness, thrift, respect for learning, deferred gratification, common decency: all virtues that are trashed in the pages of Nuts, Loaded and the rest. If we don't teach our children right from wrong and if we valourise and reward bad attitudes then we shall reap as we sow - and the harvest is there on the streets of our cities, right now, for all to see.

Having now read Gove's full speech (detailed study of my newly purchased "Zoo" and "Nuts" had to wait), arguably it is a pity that the press, and this website, have chosen to highlight these few throw-away lines about lads mags rather than the rest of the speech. All he is saying is that the people who profit from such mags should be asked what they think they are doing (which rather answers itself - trying to turn a profit presumably). I do find it amusing that he praises women's magazines in contrast when many of these (which unlike the lads' ones I have read) also have lots of hedonism-directed sex tips, such as "how to get more orgasms" and "how to turn your man on in bed" etc.

His theme is that relationships matter and he praises permanent relationships as an absolute good, suggesting incentives for keeping together etc but, like Cameron, only gives any justification for this in terms of the environment for bringing up children. If this is stated in terms of children, I believe one could have quite strong policies, but as soon as it gets to the "everyone should have a lovely, happy, faithful marriage/partnership like David Cameron or Alan Duncan and not be so hedonistic" (not a direct quote you understand) you just invite opposition from people who are quite happy having (or that other people are having) uncommitted promiscuous relationships/lifestyles thank-you-very-much-and-it's-none-of-Government's-business-if-they-don't-like-it. The fact is that some people are suited to committed monogonous relationships, but many are not. This includes many women who until fairly recent times were, unlike men, not allowed to admit it. We can still however agree that children should be brought up by both "birth parents" (which Gove advocates, not sure where that leaves the lesbian parents who cannot both be birth parents) which is (a) relevant only for parents and (b) actually allows for the possibility of quite a few other types of relationship than the monogonous which are still consistent with married parents committed to bringing up children together.

Gove's speech also does quite a lot of blaming absent fathers "rather than single mothers" (albeit then says it's a pity when loving fathers are denied access), without considering that it is our family law which enables the mothers in practice to deny fathers access if they want. He even bemoans the fact that unmarried fathers' names do not appear on birth certificates when that is entirely the choice of the mother.

Finally, he then drags in the gap between rich and poor, saying that is about the relationship between the top and the bottom (endorsing the Polly T doctrine that caused such a rumpus last year and which endorses relative poverty rather than absolute poverty as what we should be concerned about).

Buried in the speech, he also says: "We'll give every parent the right to take the money currently allocated to their child's education and then deploy it in accordance with their priorities, not the Government's". Presumably he means educational priorities (or I think I'll blow it on lads' mags subs thanks!), but is this the education voucher, or does he mean they can deploy the money unless it's on something the Government does not want to encourage, like existing private schools and parents who can afford to top it up.

So, overall, I am afraid that I find the speech a muddle. Perhaps it's not surprising after all that the lads' mags statement was highlighted as it's about the only thing (limited though the statement was) that's clear in the speech. It's good that Gove is trying to tackle wide themes, but, despite his reputation for intelligence, he hasn't really managed anything very coherant here.

Thing is....Do these magazines encourage boys and men to be shallow and misogynistic - or is it the shallow and misogynistic who tend to read these magazines? I actually believe it is not the magazines which cause the attitudes towards women to coarsen but they merely reflect the attitudes which already exist in society and are getting worse! The problem seems to be the disempowering of men who then become angry and resentful towards women. If only the advertisers would get away from the type of commercial that portrays Dad or boyfriend as too dim to be able to clean a kitchen floor properly!!

"but, like Cameron, only gives any justification for this in terms of the environment for bringing up children."

Doesn't Cameron also justify support for marriage on the basis that committed couples look after each other and provide less of a burden on the state?

Don't go in for magazines. More of a PMQs man myself.

If Theresa May's fulsome cleavage bulging out of the opposition benches isn't enough to make a chap feel all wobbly I don't know what is.

Marvellous.

Editor

What facts is the Libertarian referring to?

FWIW I think Gove makes himself and the Tory Party look like prats on this one.

Lol. I'm sure that Theresa May does make most men wobbly, whereas Nuts has the opposite effect!

I do think the Gove needs to read the women's mags he thinks are so responsible before heaping praise on them. Nuts is the 'trashy' (but very fun) end of the mens mag range, but if you look at the same end of the women's mag range, they are not much different.

But then you really don't expect Cameroons to tell the truth when an easy populist soundbite is available as Fraser Nelson has just detailed in relation to Osborne and that other scourge of Cameroons, alcopops.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

Leaving aside the specific magazines, the really stupid and offensive parts of Gove's comments are those that denigrate "thrill seeking" and hedonism. There is nothing wrong with either as a lifestyle choice.

In particular, the positioning of "thrill-seeking" as negative is a fantastic way to alienate young voters who enjoy activities such as bungee jumping, snowboarding and the like.

For that matter, his prudishness is also a great way to dissuade the millions of British people who enjoy "non-conventional" lifestyles and sexualities, but who also look to rightwing economic and social policies.

He & the "moralistic" wing of the Tory party are welcome to their opinions, but plenty of others, both young and old, view sexual adventurousness between consenting adults as nothing but positive. We live in a country where fetish club nights can pull in 3000 people of all ages and social backgrounds. Trying to pretend that everyone should aspire to monogamy, marriage and children is naive, condescending and petty.

If I am going to vote at the next election I am going to need to be certain I'm not going to get Nanny Gove staring down his nose at my chosen lifestyle - and not impinge on my freedoms in a lame attempt to influence a few yobbish idiots.

Dale, is that true?

Dorian Grape, I wholeheartedly agree with your posts. Very sensible.

I thought Dave was a 'liberal Conservative'? How did he let Gove come up with this tripe?

Deborah says: "Doesn't Cameron also justify support for marriage on the basis that committed couples look after each other and provide less of a burden on the state?"

Perhaps he does say this, but Gove doesn't in this speech. I think it's pretty tenuous. The single without children are more likely to remain at home with parents for longer (no housing subsidies) and less likely to require social housing. They also don't "risk" the need for widow/er's pensions, will not lose their assets and therefore often their financial self-sufficiency through divorce, are more likely to be contributing as part of the workforce, likely to have greater job mobility and, certainly for the men, have a lower life expectancy so cost less in pensions. They are also often more likely to take part in public and charitable activities because they don't have the tug to hunker down in a private cocoon. They go out more, keeping the service economy going, and also pay Inheritance Tax earlier and have no possibility of transfering investment income to a lower taxed partner. There are lots of different relationships resulting in people looking after each other, not least children looking after elderly parents - which is an argument for having children not for getting married (although, as aired above, I think for the children's sake parents should be married).

I do accept that they might, in later life at least, create the need for more housing units, but that is more an economic pressure than a burden on the State and I wasn't suggesting people wouldn't live together - just that the State should be indifferent as to whether they are married to the person/people they live with; and to who, and how many people, they are (subject to safe sex) sleeping with.

The smug married/civilly partnered party will not get many votes from the likes of Bridget Jones. It also lays itself vulnerable once again to the charge of hypocrisy as and when it is revealed that some of the committed partnerships of senior party figures are not what they might have seemed. As will always be the case in any random group of 20 or 30 married people.

He is right, even if those of us increasingly feeling our age are almost heartened to learn that something so utterly of the Nineties is still part of popular culture at all. But Gove and others need to face the fact that both those publications and the lifestyle that they encourage are simply the operation of their own beloved "free" market, which cannot be in goods and services generally but not in alcohol, gambling, drugs, prostitution and pornography.

The commercialisation of sexuality in general and of women's bodies in particular is a vast social and cultural problem. In this fortieth anniversary year of Humanae Vitae, the only really good thing that Pope Paul VI ever did, we need to acknowledge that the root of this problem is the poisoning of women in order to make them permanently available for the sexual gratification of men.

We might also consider that even the World Health Organisation, hardly a Vatican puppet, describes Natural Family Planning as 99.8% effective (how could it not be?). But, of course, it can only be done by a faithful married couple acting as such. So it is out of the question. Isn't it?

Dale, I quite agree. Does anyone have Gove's email address? I think he needs to sign up to some 'specialist online publictions'.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

The allegations made earlier on this thread are unfounded and have been overwritten.

The most "obscene" photos I have ever seen in a mag (and probably ever) were in a ladies mag. When I was kid my sister used to hide her copies of her chosen ladies mag under the bed lest my mother should find them. For years boys/men had to make do with hobby mags or top shelf mags. The arrival of lads mags filled a gap in the market for lads' interests. I don't care for all of them and certainly don't buy them. But I think Gove has got the wrong end of the stick here.

Well, it's a first for me to be overwritten but please note I was reacting to a "revelation" not making it. And I would say that it was a revelation (irrelevant really to this thread), not an allegation, that I was reacting to.

Welcome to the club, Londoner.

"The commercialisation of sexuality in general and of women's bodies in particular is a vast social and cultural problem."

Problem for who, and why?

You say that as if it's a new phenomenon. Also, why be so sexist about it?

No worries Londoner but best to ignore "revelations" and focus onj the subject at hand. Perhaps I'm fair-ish game but there was no need on the part of the culprit to implicate an innocent other.

Editor, when the comments drift from the main argument and start to attack you personally you know you have won the day.

Great speech from Michael Gove and one of those issues in which the noisy minority like to scream bloody murder over, while the silent majority will sit back and think to themselves that Mr Gove is articulating what they have felt for a long time.

"the noisy minority like to scream bloody murder over, while the silent majority will sit back and think to themselves that Mr Gove is articulating what they have felt for a long time."

Well I'd like to see where you got those stats!

Even so, are you saying it's OK to impose their will on a minority just because it doesn't fit in with their particular morals?

Why did Gove select two magazines aimed at heterosexual men to attack? Is he trying to imply that straight men have a more hedonistic and damaging approach to sex than gay men?

Why could he not have tried to at least strike some balance and named, for example, Nuts and an equivalent mag aimed at gay men to make his point?

Why are trashy mags with topless pics for women and gay men ok, but those for straight men are turning their readers in monsters?

Is the issue really about their content or the fact that Gove just doesn't like seeing them on the shelves when he pops in to pick up his copy of 'Make War Not Love'?

A man operating in the venal milieu that is the H of C has no moral authority: the happy reader of of one of these magazines is quite entitled to give Gove two fingers (if he has a hand free) and two words: "John Lewis".

I read the whole speech, it was well balanced and made much sense. What about all the work done by railway magazines they are very mature, or gardening or photography magazine?

Michael should have thought through the point he was trying to make before he said it. It does not really fit with the rest of the speech. Pity he did it unless he knew the media would high jack a sentence in a paragraph. But hey they have to make a living selling news. Michael does not need cheap soundbites to detract from a very good speech. Pity a good speech wasted.

"Great speech from Michael Gove and one of those issues in which the noisy minority like to scream bloody murder over, while the silent majority will sit back and think to themselves that Mr Gove is articulating what they have felt for a long time."

I doubt the majority of people could give two hoots to be honest. Even my stereotypical Tory-voting Daily Mail reading mother would find this ludicrous. My friends used to read these magazines and it certainly hasn't turned them into hedonistic bohemians. Most of them are in stable relationships and want to get married.

Not the smartest move ever. Clearly someone's put the "lads mags" bit in to attract a bit of attention. The speech overall is relatively sensible, but as others have pointed out, its been overshadowed. The story itself is poor in my view, too remeniscent of the "old" Conservative party, back-to-basics and similar nonsense. Gove needs to pick up the pace in future.

I hope that people who have read thus far will have noticed that 80% of the comments hostile to Gove come from unfamiliar names (sharing a single IP address, I suspect).

There's obviously a sleazy creep out there who is deeply annoyed at having the shots called on his shallow and adolescent preoccupation with sex and women-as-objects.

"There's obviously a sleazy creep out there who is deeply annoyed at having the shots called on his shallow and adolescent preoccupation with sex and women-as-objects."

hmm.. I thought it was the left who will use thinly veiled insults and suggestions that they are the authority of the majority to push through their authoritarian, discriminative agenda.

You may disagree with the magazines being available, but the implication that you think the female form is evil and will corrupt the minds of young men is insulting to both sexes.

Interesting theory, CS.

I wonder who this shadowy figure is ?

Gove's boss at News International perhaps.

Common Sense is a typical Cameroon who cannot accept the reality that there a lot of Conservatives who don't buy the anti-heterosexual male agenda of Women2Win and Boles' "buddies".

The speech could have delivered by Harriet Harperson. This is going back to mad WHSmith/chocolate orange stuff of early Cameron.

Can we have shadow ministers concentrating on real issues please?

The ultimate resort of sleazy, woman-pestering saddos is to imply that anyone who ridicules and condemns their low-life behaviour is somehow 'anti-sex'.

It reminds me of a particularly unpreposessing male student I used to know who developed a keen interest in libertarian philosophy. It was only when he started to opine 'women are property' that I clicked that he was searching for a way of bypassing the small problem of female consent that had thusfar prevented him scoring.

Common sense (sic) uses the old straw-man smear tactic and then accuses libertarians of being rapists. The Cameroons are the real nasty party who smear their opponents rather than address their arguments.

Re "This is going back to mad WHSmith/chocolate orange stuff of early Cameron. " : I was not aware we ever left it.

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Massow.

"In an interview with Attitude Magazine in June 2007, Massow... was part of a personal plan hatched by him and his flatmate, Nicholas Boles, to use their whit and his profile to convince the party to modify and remove issues such as prejudice, in whatever form, as an election stance. Their other flatmate, Michael Gove, also supported the repeal of section 28."

An unsubstantiated allegation, Editor? Or have you given into threats from CCHQ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/862806.stm

"Mr Massow... now owns several country properties and - having sold his £700,000 pied de terre - now rents a Mayfair pad with Michael Portillo's biographer, Michael Gove, and Tory councillor, Nicholas Boles. "It's like Tory Friends," he jokes.

Still unsubstantiated, Editor?

Editor at 10.05 writes: "taxpayers via the welfare state are picking up the pieces of our great libertarian social experiment and the cost is high"

You're blaming something that is non-existant. Our libertarian social experiment? I think you mean our experiment with cultural Marxism.

Blaming libertarian ideas is rather like Mugabe blaming the free market for the state of the Zimbabwean economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-is-the-truth-about-the-tories-young-pretender-738672.html

"For Mr Massow's three residences are not quite as described, either. His cottage in Brightling Park, Sussex, is rented from friends for £60 a week. His Frome house is not a Grade I listed Jacobean mansion, as reported, but a Grade II* Georgian town house, which he bought in a derelict state and did up with the help of grants. He says it is worth £100,000 less than it has cost him.

His Mayfair flat is rented, and is shared with Michael Portillo's biographer, Michael Gove, and a Tory councillor, Nicholas Boles. "It's like Tory Friends," Mr Massow says. "We all sold our flats for a good price a few months ago and we thought it would be a laugh."

Still unsubstantiated, Editor?

How about an apology for your unsubstantiated allegation?

Very convenient that Gove gave GQ his stamp of approval. After all David Cameron has appeared on its front cover and I believe the editor of this site appeared in a photoshoot for it recently, and wouldn't you know, the new deputy editor, Jonathan Isaby, also happens to write a column for GQ.

Why not visit their website for yourself - is it really all that different from Zoo and Nuts?

What people read is nobody's business and it has sod all to do with the state. We have had ten years or so of a Government that thinks it can tell us how we need to live out every aspect of our lives, we don't need a Tory one doing the same.

Leave people alone to make their own choices in their own way!

Libertarian, I agree with you that Gove's made a mistake, but going on about his private life seems a bit pointless. Apart from anything else, anybody who is interested in that sort of thing is probably on Guido Fawkes anyway.

Incidentally, have you checked out his commentariat ? Compared to our genteel discussions Guido's boys are like a van full of orcs :D

Gove is turning into the new David Willetts. Both tailor their views to those of the party leader. Senior CPS staff cannot stand Willetts after his intellectual "gymnastics" to curry favour with the Cameroons.

"Dave", I was responding to the Editor who deleted my comments about Gove's flat-sharing because he called them "unsubtantiated".

Would Gove attack the publication of half-naked men in "Attitude" or other gay lifestyle magazines? Highly unlikely. Double standards!

Gove, who used to call himself a libertarian, has turned into a social authoritarian. Moderniser? More like a traditional wet patrician like Dave!

To be fair to Michael, who I think has cocked up on this, I'd be astonished if he was ever on record calling himself a libertarian. I've certainly never heard it and would never have described him as such - and I AM one.

Inspector Morgan is mistaken. Gove was the proposer of a motion, in a CPS debate, that declared that the Conservative Party should be a libertarian party. He was opposed by Lord Blackwell and David Willetts.

I heard for the first time Willetts' ludicrous argument that Conservatives are libertarians with families - as if libertarians do not have families. The last remaining, albeit miniscule, respect that I had for Willetts vanished at that point.

Michael Fallon MP, on my left, remarked that he was one of the few libertarians left in the party. Over drinks, Michael Howard tried to claim that he was a libertarian because he put more criminals, especially drug users, in jail. At that point, I realised that the lunatics were running the asylum.

If being a Conservative really is about order first and libertarianism second, as claimed by "anti libertarian", then the the party can have my membership card back in shreds and I'll have the 20 odd hours a week I devote to returning it to Government back thanks.

Any more repressive stupid knee jerk reactionary cr*p like this and no-one under 50 will want to vote for us again, including me.

Oh dear. This seems to have really got them going. I'm always re-assured to think that most people on here are untypical of Tory activists who are usually busy actually doing the work. As for porn, most of them wouldn't notice if their tortoise made love to a straw hat in their cupboard for hours on end.

To put London deliver's mind at rest, I work flexible hours.

I remain bemused by Mr Gove's prudishness. He was the founder of Policy Exchange with Francis Maude. Maude appointed Douglas Smith to run its sister organisation CChange.

Whilst running CChange, Smith continued to run his Fever Parties company. It ran expensive orgies for rich Notting Hill Billies.

Douglas Smith was recruited by Maude to be a speechwriter for David Cameron, a post which, to the best of my knowledge, he still holds.

So why was Gove happy to work with Smith but now slagging off Nuts? We should be told.

Here's a link to Rod Liddell's Spectator article on Fever Parties.

"... it was revealed that a 'senior Tory strategist' leads a 'double life' as Britain's top organiser of sex parties. That's Dougie Smith, the co-ordinator of the influential, modernising think-tank, Cchange.

"Dougie's gone to ground now, conscious of having horribly embarrassed his Cchange colleagues and made life difficult for his political masters. At Cchange, quite properly, they blush and change the subject when you ask them about it - but even then, in private, they concede they have no ideological objections to Dougie's chosen vocation. It's just a bit delicate within the party, is all, they murmur. They're worried about funding, too. And so, somewhat archly, a source close to Dougie Smith told me, 'Now, they're living the modernising dream rather more than they expected.'"

So why is Smith, obviously at odds with Gove's new prudishness, still writing speeches for Dave?

Sorry, forgot the link - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200306/ai_n9265261.

I was worried it was only a matter of time before the Tories started to sabotage their own poll lead. I've never bought Zoo or Nuts before in my life but I'd rather subscribe to both than be told they're going to be taken off the shelves for my own good.

Gove is a patronising idiot.

I stand corrected about Gove's small l libertarianism, Libertarian - though regarding your comment on Michael Howard (not a libertarian) I don't see anything illibertarian about punishing criminals. The difference between libertarians and anarchists is that libertarians believe in the state because it is needed to enforce personal safety and property rights.

And on Fever Parties etc, let's not make the mistake of lumping all previously-unorthodox behaviour together in an undifferentiated mass. These are well heeled professional people in long term relationships, often married, often with families. Read the literature, there is nothing feckless or druken about swingers. They are more likely to stay together than normal people, in fact. They are a stabilising factor in society, not a problem factor. The diffference with feral vomiting chavs could not be greater.

"The difference between libertarians and anarchists is that libertarians believe in the state because it is needed to enforce personal safety and property rights."

Libertarians don't believe people should be locked up for doing drugs.

'This is the road to censorship and totalitarianism'-Libertarian. To put it very kindly I would say that's complete and utter tosh. Why don't you read the speech again Libertarian and see if you can understand it?
Britain has become a very coarse country and our media can often reflect that.These lads and some womens magazines appeal to our baser instincts and if our Education secretary can't comment on a subject like this who can?

Malcolm, I do not read Nuts or Zoo but we need to ask why Gove picked on them. Iain Dale, your new employer at Total Politics, criticised, on his blog, Gove for being selective. I suggest that you read his piece, especially as he describes his views as libertarian.

Gove would not attack women's or gay magazines for publishing pictures of topless men. They encourage lewd or louche behaviour too. What we have here is a new form of politically correct Cameroonism. The Cameroons discriminated against heterosexual white males when forming the Priority List. Gove is merely having another go.

Iain Dale is free to write whatever he wants, the fact that you likened Gove's very thoughtful speech to censorship and totalitarism is complete rubbish.

And the fun begins:

'One Tory who certainly does have an interest is Louise Bagshawe, who is on David Cameron's A-list of prospective candidates at the next election. Louise, 37, wrote for lads' mag Maxim in 1999 advising the way to snare a woman was to "pin her arms across her back, kissing her hard, then pushing her down on to the sofa".

She carried on the same romantic vein by saying woman wanted " a predator" in the bedroom, adding: "The occasional sexist comment doesn't hurt." '

Daily Mirror

Just wait until they remeber that Cameron was in GQ.

Gove is an idiot not of the real world. Sure the mags are coarse and depict women in a brutish way but to link this to fecless fathers is fatuous. The feckless fathers did not become this way because of Nuts. Nuts just tells it like it is.
For heavens sake belt up. You are undermining the validity of what you have to say on education.

The problem with the Tories is not that they have started now but that they haven't done anything for social conservatism so far. Millions of people across the country are sick of the all-obliterating sexopoly of the media and contemporary "culture". If endless reminders of screwing are what you want, just toddle off and find them, but could people just stop insisting that sex in myriad forms has to be permanently publicised and promoted, displayed, advocated? The ageing liberal revolutionaries have had their chance, and the social consequences of their individualistic choices have been appalling. At their age all this discussion of the freedom for endless portrayals of sex reek far more of desperation than liberation.

So the Tory Party recognises that social breakdown is a bad thing? Good!

So the Tory Party recognises that social breakdown is financed by the welfare state, leads to single-parent families and is encouraged by the hedonistic culture promoted by the disgusting, deeply unhealthy magazines on display in virtually every news agent's shop in the country?

Whom to blame?

They're too scared to criticise the welfare state, which pays for it all, and too scared to criticise the single mothers, who benefit from it all. So they go after the cheerleaders in the magazine racks.

Huzzah!

Except of course that they won't.

The idea of a swivel-eyed libertarian like Gove (who positively approves of homosexuality, for example, as says as much in his silly speech) taking actual action against the nation's pornographers (such as Rupert Murdoch!) is palpably absurd.

I am so glad that the Conservative party are addressing the issue of lads mags. They are the most pressing issue for everyone in the country today. I do not worry about the economy, the creeping control of the EU and the fact that we have two more years of the most inept government ever. No, I and indeed all my friends and colleauges lay awake at night worrying that our teenage sons might take a butchers at Jordan or some other third rate 'celeb'in Zoo or Nuts - er, I am told that this is the sort of thing that goes on within these mags by the way.

See today's (5 August) general news thread for my further comment on Gove's delusions in the light of my detailed (and above promised) perusal of the innocuous "Nuts" magazine this morning!

"As for porn, most of them wouldn't notice if their tortoise made love to a straw hat in their cupboard for hours on end."

"The Tortoise Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat"?!

Read Harry Phibbs' excellent critique of Gove in the Grauniad - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/conservatives.michaelgove.

Here's the money quote -

"The shadow cabinet have been busy reading a new book called Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago which outlines the philosophy of "libertarian paternalism".

"Libertarians have often found it frustrating trying to explain that just because they don't wish to make something illegal doesn't necessarily mean that they approve of it. The (very) soft porn offered in lad mags is an example.

"What makes me uneasy when politicians engage in this is the temptation for them to pick on the easy targets. Buying a copy of Zoo yesterday from my local newsagent I saw it was next on the shelf to the gay magazine Attitude with a headline on its cover saying "The sex issue". Gove lamented the "instant-hit hedonism" of Zoo, but did he give a similar rebuke to Attitude for encouraging promiscuity? Like hell he did."

Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron and an excuse for finger-wagging politicians to patronise us with their closet authoritarian views.

I've not read the full speech but think that there is a wider more disturbing issue than the concerns already made. These exlicit mags are displayed in such a prominent position that the possible influence on children (ie under age 16) is bordering on child abuse.
Retailers are as much to blame as the publishers; they receive incentives to display such material in visually prominent places therefore increasing their own profit at the expense of the public's unwittering participation in the glorification of such obscene front covers.
Martin McColls newsagent for example displays all these type of mags at a height of 3.5 to 4 foot high in between the daily papers and the evening paper, opposite the children's sweets. The Management will tell you that these mags can only be sold to over 16's so why is it then that they will allow them to be viewed on low shelves in such a prominent way? Children above the age of 5 can see these images on the main shelves and even babes in prams can view them at the counter, at their pram height, while their parents are paying for goods. I have yet to receive a response from McColls in answer to my letter of complaint regarding this issue.


Back to basics anyone ?

"We should ask those who make profits out of revelling in, or encouraging, selfish irresponsibility among young men what they think they're doing." The MP for Surrey Heath will not need to go too far to obtain answers.

His constituency's Conservative Association accepted £2,000 from Red Fig, the company that helped set up the channel Nuts TV – an offshoot of the magazine.

Highlights on the channel's schedule for this week include Secret Diary of a Nuts Girl and Sextastic, billed as "a witty and eye-opening late-night romp through the wonderful and wacky world of sex".

Telegraph

Sextastic, of course, being just the sort of good, character building stuff that Michael 'giz two grand' Gove supports.

" even babes in prams can view them at the counter, at their pram height, while their parents are paying for goods"

Yes, let's make sure all babies wear blindfolds when breastfeeding in case they are 'abused' by the sight of a covered breast.

These 'lads mags' are humiliting women can't we see it? showing them as a sex object which leads to treating women similar to lower class which already is happening enough every day (look at men getting paid more than a women in modern countries and different religions in far east for example) so if women is only for sex which leads to number of rapes, teenage sex abuse, anorexia, bulimia,teenage pregnancies etc what happened to mens intelligence? think they encourage their own sisters or daughters to be put in potentional risk! why cant they really see what women are all about? do they not see what they are doing to their women by supporting this? just to satisfy the sick fantasies about airbrushed fakes.. this can continue in porn but only as restricted which makes sense, not in every day to accent it so much as it hurts every woman i know how they've been cheated on, abused because they don't look so unreal and perfect doll-alike like them and are not about just sex. Just so upsetting! I'm fearing about the future of my own kids

I don't want the government anywhere near my life, or my bedroom.
Freedom of choice.

"These 'lads mags' are humiliting women can't we see it? showing them as a sex object "

It's comments like that which are humiliating women.

Making them feel that their bodies are dirty or evil and if they ever show any of it or are in any way sexual that they should be banished because they are causing "[a] number of rapes, teenage sex abuse, anorexia, bulimia,teenage pregnancies etc "
- no wonder they get paranoid about their image and end up disturbed or afraid to get reasonable advice if they have questions or problems.

better results you can go for consultation of the doctor.

Norm your right. Pornography is also completely out of order it has become a spoiler.
We have been overrun, or so it appears. We had pretty well kept a lid on things, even going a little to far in repression. That might have been our mistake having Censored to hard when we let up (lowered our guard ) we were completely over run. Can we get the porno-genie under control? The internet completely out flanked any controls we once had. I suppose we could Censor the Net, but I know we would only chase it underground. Even so that would mean that the majority had some say it what is presented to itself.

Awesome posting really. thank you very much.

Flat worm treatment abuse is just another downside of this modern fall.

Viagra is a powerful experiment in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Millions of men worldwide have got benefited from this and are able to cope with the problems associated with ED and enjoy there sexual life like never before.

Sarah Summer’s eBook "Natural Cure for Yeast Infection" is highly recommended for people who are suffering from yeast infection. She used to be a sufferer of the disease herself but with her husband’s help, she was able to get all the knowledge there is about the harmful Candida yeast. For more details log on to http://yeast-infection-guide.blogspot.com/.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker